The advantages of having a son in law school who specializes in computers... Usual disclaimer - not by an attorney, not a legal opinion, research just for information and discussion: = = = Britain and America have separate standards for publication. America follows the single publication standard for statutes of limitation: Here is the American rule: Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., No. 00-9220 (2nd Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit applied the single publication rule to statements posted on the Internet. Following a broadcast of a news special alleging misconduct by the American military, John Plaster wrote a letter to the New York Times stating that the allegations were untrue and identifying Robert Van Buskirk as the source of the untrue allegations. The letter was published in the newspaper's editorial page and posted online by Plaster. Two years after the editorial page letter was posted on the Internet, Van Buskirk sued Plaster and the New York Times for defamation. Applying the single publication rule, the court dismissed the action because it had not been brought within one year after the article was first posted on the Internet. Here is the British multi-publication rule: Loutchansky v. The Times Newspapers Limited, 2001 EWCA Civ. 1805 (England and Wales Court of Appeal, 2001). The Court of Appeal held that a newspaper's online archive does not enjoy a qualified privelege with respect to defamatory material. The court's ruling confirmed that defamatory content made available online will be considered to be republished each time that it is accessed by users. The defendant printed articles identifying the plaintiff as "a suspected mafia boss." After publication, the articles were posted on the defendant's website. The court held that although the printed articles were protected by a qualified privelege to defamation regarding matters of public interest, the online archives were not protected by the privelege. The court noted that continuing to post the material without a warning that the allegations may be untrue was not only defamation but also irresponsible journalism. The two courts reached very different conclusions. Under British law there is a new publication each time the material is accessed. This has the potential to make a lawsuit possible decades after the first publication. Under American law the first publication starts the statute of limitations. Thus after 1 year, there is no longer any liability. I am not sure what happens when articles are edited. It may be that this is enough to restart the statute, or it may only start again for the new information. On the issue of liability - in America it is unclear: Sabbato v. Hardy, Case No. 2000CA00136 (Ohio Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2000). An Ohio appellate court reversed a lower court's decision concerning immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Hardy operated a website that allowed users to post and read opinions on the website. Sabbato sued Hardy for defamatory comments that were posted on his website. The appellate court found that the lower court had erred in granting Hardy immunity under the CDA. The court determined that Hardy was not automatically entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the CDA because the complaint alleged that Hardy had personally participated in creating the defamatory comments. Opinion at http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/sabbatodec.pdf Schneider v. Amazon.com Inc., 31 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). A Washington court held that Amazon.com was shielded by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and not liable for statements posted by a third party on its website. Several books written by plaintiff Jerome Schneider were for sale on the Amazon website. Amazon also posted several book reviews that criticized Schneider personally. Schneider requested that the reviews be removed; however, Amazon failed to take any action. Schneider filed an action for defamation and other torts. The court found that Amazon qualified as an interactive service provider under the safe harbor provision of Section 230 of the CDA. As such, Amazon was not liable for statements posted on its website by third parties. Given Wikipedia's editing policy, it is unlikely to qualify for the safe harbor protection under the CDA. Amazon.com does not edit posts, and thus is essentially immune from suit. While the other case found an editor liable, that was because it appeared from the complaint that he had participated in the libeling. Wikipedia, unfortunately, falls between the two extremes. Internationally, it is even more confusing. Wikipedia has the potential to be sued in basically any jurisdiction for the content that it posts online and the standards vary. Here are two articles that give a good overview of defamation on the internet. http://www.internetpolicy.net/practices/libel.shtml http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v8n4/nicholson84_text.html If all an editor did was hit save, I do not think liability would attach, but if any editing was done, even simply reading the page, there is an argument that they are liable. -Robert Berlet ________________________________ From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Steve Block Sent: Thu 12/8/2005 4:54 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel law Ray Saintonge wrote: